惊艳AI首席执行官玛丽萨 Mayer最近成为最新科技首席执行官
在Mayer一案中，这涉及要求AI工具帮助她女儿的学校指定描述。 OpenAI公司CEOSam Altman(Sam Altman)表示，MetaCEO马克·扎克伯格甚至表示，通过AI满足你社交和浪漫的需求会越来越被接受。
这都导致TechCrunch的阿曼达·西尔伯林(Amanda Silberling)怀疑AI高管是否只是太过分，无法为普通人制造出产品
我和阿曼达聊了一下为什么行业领袖有时会显得聋了。 Kirsten想知道这究竟是市场营销问题还是产品问题。
阿曼达的回答是：“ 两者都有一点。 ” 她还认为，技术产业正在日益推动未来“让人类的基本互动从实际发生中越发优化”，并补充说，“而且叫我老派，但我认为人类能够相互交谈，很可能是社会的净积极因素。 ”
继续阅读我们的谈话预览，编辑长度和清晰度。
Anthony Ha：对于AI，社会上有很多怀疑，这种感觉是，经营这些公司的人并没有得到我们的最大利益，因此，你会想，“也许不要这样说，” 因为人们会非常怀疑地看到他们。
我想[CEO]正在试图走这个微妙的平衡。 一方面，他们有巨大的经济动力来证明你应该在生活的各个方面使用这种技术。 但当你做这个案子时，它实际上[不画]非常吸引人。 在某些情况下
Kirsten Korosec:Anthony，如果他们接受你的建议，我们在这个节目上没有什么可谈的。
但我要说：对于ChatGPT和其他AI工具，而在很多情况下，它似乎只是过度复杂什么会，像，观察你的孩子。 这对有些人来说可能很困难，当你看到这些引文时，它看起来会非常的脱节。
对我来说，它总是回到——他们同谁说话？外面有人可以联系吗？也许有。
Amanda Silberling：我们所见过的其他一些使用案例是Bumble CEOW Whitney Wolf Hear已经评论道：“ 那么，如果我们有AI的监管者，你的AI会和另一个人的AI约会。 然后，如果AIs有一个很好的约会，然后他们介绍人民。”
或《纽约时报》的文章中，Marissa Mayer提到：「如果我的AI能与我丈夫的AI协调，我觉得人们似乎在试图过度优化与人们的对话。
我已看到这发生在我这一代人身上，我习惯了“显然你可以上网，我觉得这些事情会越来越多，人类的基本互动会越来越优化。 并称我为"老学派"，但我认为人类能够相互交谈，对于社会来说可能是净积极的。
阿曼达，一个人在肉房里谈话能产生多少收入？
阿曼达：这就是问题所在约会真的很低效。 你和不同的人约会真糟糕你可能会浪费一个晚上，然后说，“好吧，那是个失败。” 如果你不用约会，如果你的人工智能能为你约会呢？” 但那里有些不是人类的东西。
然后，你将你将要与谁约会的决定外包给一台你信任的计算机，它比你自己更了解你，我认为这不是真的。
柯尔斯滕：我认为有一件事值得回顾，我有点暗示了这一点：他们在跟谁说话？在你看来，这些优化的观众是谁？是产品问题，还是信息问题？他们只是用错误的方式谈论它，而实际上，这里有这样一个非常伟大的价值，它似乎与现实和人性脱节，但如果他们只是谈论不同，那会更好。 或者说，这是否是一个产品问题，而你的观点是，我们正在集中力量，用AI工具优化一些错误的东西？
Amanda：我认为两者都有一点，但我认为市场营销问题来自当你把这些高人放在这些价值巨大的公司里，一起谈论他们生活中的痛苦点，[他们专注于]预定晚餐，预订航班。 但我不会每周订一次航班。 我并不常订晚餐，当我这样做的时候，这些并不是我生命中一个特别的挑战。
显然人们从ChatGPT和Claude等事物中找到价值
安东尼(Anthony)：我一直在想的一件事是，有像Uber这样的公司，当它第一个发布时，它针对的是这个在旧金山成立的早期技术引进者，我记得我非常有信心，这永远不会得到更广泛的普及。 这仅仅是针对一个非常狭窄的年轻城市千年的观众，他们有钱在汽车上闲置，它[独特]在旧金山很有效。
对于很多事情来说，技术行业已经成功地打赌，“人们没有赶上我们，但我们是领先者，我们反映了未来的消费者的外表，即未来的家庭。 ”
而在这种情况下，这个赌注似乎还没有被证实——有各种原因，部分是因为这个技术被推广到社会上，是截然不同的。 人们开始说，“我不喜欢这种技术在我生命中的影响。 我不喜欢你把这件事当做我一生中的每一段经历都能被优化的东西。 但实际上，我想过我自己的生活。 实际上，我想亲生子女。”
Amanda：我认为，与此同时，我们看到科技界人士之间发生这种过度优化的情况并不是巧合。 也有一种人们又回到想使用翻转电话的运动，而我以前曾谈到过这个问题，或者有人购买CD，因为他们已经厌倦了说出他们想听的话的算法。
这仅仅是一种有趣的文化紧张，在那里，我们还没有找到什么优化能真正帮助我们
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Dazzle AI CEO Marissa Mayer recently became the latest tech CEO to face criticism over seemingly out-of-touch comments extolling the usefulness of AI.
In Mayer’s case, that involved asking an AI tool for help with a school-assigned description of her daughter. For OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, that’s included suggesting that parents create personalized podcasts for their kids’ drive to school and also declaring that he could not imagine parenting without ChatGPT. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has even suggested that it will become increasingly acceptable to meet your social and romantic needs through AI.
This all led TechCrunch’s Amanda Silberling to wonder if AI executives are simply too out-of-touch to build products for normal people — a crucial question with Anthropic set to go public just as Wall Street begins losing its appetite for heavy AI spending.
On the latest episode of the Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I chatted with Amanda about why industry leaders can sometimes seem so tone deaf. Kirsten wondered if this is more of a marketing problem or a product problem.
Amanda’s answer: “A little bit of both.” She also argued that the tech industry is increasingly pushing a future “where basic human interaction gets more and more optimized out of actually occurring,” adding, “And call me old school, but I think that humans being able to talk to each other is probably a net positive for society.”
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Anthony Ha: There’s a lot of societal skepticism about AI, this feeling that the people running these companies don’t have our best interests at heart, that they’re out of touch. And so, you would just think, “Maybe don’t make statements like that,” because of course, people are going to see them very skeptically.
I think [CEOs] are trying to walk this delicate balance. On the one hand, there’s a tremendous financial incentive for them to make the case that you should use this technology in every aspect of your lives. But when you make that case, it actually [doesn’t paint] a very appealing picture. In some cases, it’s downright dystopian.
Kirsten Korosec: Anthony, if they took your advice, we would have nothing to talk about on this show.
But I will say this: There’s this whole idea of ChatGPT and other AI tools making your life easier when it comes to personal relationships. And in many of these cases, it just seems to overcomplicate what would be, like, observing your child. That might be hard for some people, the people who are building these products, and it doesn’t necessarily relate to everyone else out there in the world. It can just seem so incredibly disconnected when you see these quotes.
To me, it always comes back to — who are they speaking to? Are there people out there who can relate? Maybe there are.
Amanda Silberling: Other use cases we’ve seen people mention are, like, the Bumble CEO Whitney Wolf Heard has made comments about, “Well, what if we had AI concierges, your AI dates the other person’s AI. And then if the AIs have a good date together, then they introduce the people.”
Or in the New York Times article, Marissa Mayer mentioned, “Well, what if my AI could coordinate with my husband’s AI” and stuff like that. And I think that it feels like people are trying to over-optimize out of just having conversations with people.
I’ve already seen that happen in my generation, where I do notice in myself that if I’m ordering takeout, it feels weird to call a place. I’m just so used to, “Well, obviously you can do it online and you don’t have to talk to anyone. And I feel like there’s just going to be more of these things, where basic human interaction gets more and more optimized out of actually occurring. And call me old school, but I think that humans being able to talk to each other is probably a net positive for society.
Sean O’Kane: Yeah, but what’s the ROI, Amanda? How much revenue can you generate off of a conversation that somebody’s having in meatspace?
Amanda: That is the thing, though. Dating is really inefficient. It sucks that you have to go on a bunch of dates with different people. You might waste an evening and be like, “Well, that was a bust.” And so you can see why people are [wondering,] “What if you didn’t have to go on dates? What if your AI could go on dates for you?” But there’s just something not human there.
And then also, you are outsourcing the decision of who you are going to date to a computer that you are trusting knows you better than yourself, which I don’t think is true.
Kirsten: One thing that I think is worth going back to, and I sort of hinted about this earlier: Who are they talking to? Who is their audience for all these optimizations, in your view? Is it a product problem, or is it a messaging problem? Are they just talking about it in the wrong way, and actually, there’s this really great value in here and it just seems out of touch with reality and humanity, but if they just talked about it differently, it would be better? Or is it actually a product problem, and to your point, that we’re focusing on optimizing sort of the wrong things with AI tools?
Amanda: I think it’s a little bit of both, but I think that the marketing problem comes from when you have these high-up people at these massively valuable companies in a room together, talking about the pain points in their lives, and [they focus on] making dinner reservations, booking flights. Everybody does those things, but I’m not booking flights once a week. I’m not making dinner reservations all the time. And when I do, those aren’t really things that I find to be a particular challenge in my life.
I mean, obviously people find value from things like ChatGPT and Claude, but I think the value that the average person is finding isn’t necessarily like booking a flight for me.
Anthony: One of the things I’ve also been thinking about is, there are companies like Uber that, when it first launched, it was targeting this tech early adopter set in San Francisco, and I remember being very confident [that] this will never catch on more broadly. This is just for a very narrow audience of young urban millennials who have money to spare on cars, and it works [uniquely] well in San Francisco.
For a lot of things, the tech industry has succeeded by betting that, “People have not caught up with us, but we are the leading edge, and we reflect what the consumer of the future looks like, the family of the future looks like.”
And in this case, it just seems like that bet is not borne out yet — for a variety of reasons, partly because the society that this technology is being promoted into is very different. People are starting to say, “I don’t love the influence that this technology is having in my life. I don’t love that you’re pitching this as something where every experience in my life should be optimized out of. But actually, I want to live my own life. I actually want to parent my own children.”
Amanda: I think that it’s not a coincidence that at the same time we see this over-optimization happening among people in tech, that there’s also a movement of people that are reverting back to wanting to use flip phones, which I’ve talked about on Equity before, or people who are buying CDs because they’re tired of an algorithm telling them what they want to listen to.
And it is just an interesting cultural tension that’s happening, where we haven’t found the balance of what optimization actually helps us and what optimization just makes us feel like we aren’t as human as we want to be.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.